Gaeth v. Deacon
964 A.2d 621, 2009 ME 9, 2009 Me. LEXIS 9 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Service of process, even if technically compliant with a state's procedural rules for publication, violates the constitutional requirement of due process if it is not reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise the defendant of the lawsuit. Notice by publication is a method of last resort and is constitutionally insufficient when published in a location with which the defendant has no connection.
Facts:
- In October 2002, while both were students at Colby College in Kennebec County, Maine, Daniel Deacon struck William Gaeth in the face, fracturing Gaeth's nose.
- In April 2004, Gaeth's attorney sent a letter regarding the incident to Deacon at his address in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
- Deacon received the letter and replied from the same Cambridge address, confirming his location and stating he had no insurance and could not afford an attorney.
- Gaeth, a resident of Lincoln County, Maine, later attempted to have a sheriff serve a complaint on Deacon at the Cambridge address.
- The sheriff made numerous attempts but was unsuccessful in effecting service because he could not gain entry into Deacon's locked apartment building.
- Deacon's only known connection to Maine was his past attendance at Colby College in Kennebec County; he had no known past or present connections to Lincoln County.
Procedural Posture:
- William Gaeth filed a complaint against Daniel Deacon for assault in the Superior Court of Lincoln County, Maine.
- After his attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, Gaeth filed a motion for service by publication, which the trial court granted.
- Notice of the lawsuit was published in the 'Lincoln County News', and a mailed copy of the order was returned to sender.
- Deacon failed to file a responsive pleading, and the clerk entered a default judgment against him.
- Following a hearing on damages, the court awarded Gaeth $75,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages.
- Upon learning of the judgment, Deacon filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing it was void for lack of proper service and personal jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court denied Deacon's motion for relief from judgment.
- Deacon (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, with Gaeth as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does service of process by publication in a newspaper located in a county where only the plaintiff resides, and with which the out-of-state defendant has no known connections, satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Clifford, J.
No. Service by publication in a newspaper where the defendant has no known connections is not reasonably calculated to provide actual notice and therefore violates constitutional due process. The court reasoned that due process requires that the method of notice must be one that a person 'desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt,' a standard established in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. While Gaeth's lawsuit was filed in a statutorily proper venue (Lincoln County) and the publication technically complied with Maine's Rule 4(g), constitutional due process demands more than mere technical compliance. Publishing a notice in a small, weekly newspaper in a Maine county—when the defendant's last known address was in Massachusetts and his only connection to the state was in a different county—was a 'mere gesture' and constitutionally insufficient. The court noted the declining efficacy of newspaper publication in modern society, emphasizing that it must be a true last resort after more diligent efforts to locate and serve the defendant have been exhausted. Because the service was constitutionally defective, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Deacon, rendering the default judgment void.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the constitutional due process standard for notice over mere technical compliance with state procedural rules. It highlights the judiciary's increasing skepticism of service by publication as a reliable method of notice in an era of electronic communication and a highly mobile population. The case serves as a strong warning to plaintiffs that they must demonstrate genuinely diligent and exhaustive efforts to locate a defendant before resorting to publication, and that the choice of publication venue must be one reasonably likely to reach the defendant. This raises the bar for what constitutes 'due diligence' and puts a greater burden on plaintiffs to justify the use of constructive notice.
